PC Minutes 05-19-2015
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 2015
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, John
Tietz, and Nancy Madsen
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Lisa Hokkanen
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
ND
BEEHIVE 2 ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 2015-10: REQUEST FOR REZONING
OF APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440
HAZELTINE BOULEVARD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) TO
MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-8); REPLAT OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6330 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD AND 6440 HAZELTINE
ND
BOULEVARD INTO TWO LOTS (BEEHIVE HOME 2 ADDITION) WITH
VARIANCES; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,700 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION
TO A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY (BEEHIVE HOMES), WITH
VARIANCES. APPLICANT: TYLER STEVENS. OWNERS: TYLER STEVENS AND
BENJAMIN & HIDEKO GOWEN.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. As you stated this is
an application. The two applicants are Tyler Stevens and Mr. Gowen and there’s three actions.
Three actions tonight that you’ll be considering. One is the rezoning of .94 acres of property
from residential single family to mixed medium density residential. A subdivision and
preliminary plat and a site plan review of a 10,700 square foot continuing care retirement
facility. So the two subject properties, so some it includes a site plan is 6330 Hazeltine
Boulevard and the other one is 6440 and that’s Mr. Gowen’s property, and I wanted to point out
Mr. Gowen’s here tonight. He’s had that property since 1937 and so I know he’s had a lot of
hostas and is a very careful steward of his property so we’ve had a lot of people look at this
property. I think the fact that Mr. Stevens was able to work with them is a testimony to how he
feels about the project that’s next to him. This property, actually the last time I saw Mr. Gowen
was actually when we did our Comprehensive Plan update. We were looking at that commercial
center to the north and looking at some transitional zoning there and knowing that it’d probably
be difficult to do single family residential, we guided the property to the north as either office or
medium density residential and as you know that came in as a continuing care. Went to the
medium density and then now this piece that Mr. Gowen has is also medium density so we’re
taking a portion of that to change to medium density. So again the rezoning is just a portion of
the property. It’s .94 acres. That’s what’s shown in yellow there so again it’s consistent with the
rezoning. Has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the subject site is. Now we’re
not rezoning the entire piece of property. It’s Mr. Gowen’s intent to stay in his home on the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
property and the rest of it so we’ll go through it in a little bit more detail and Assistant City
Engineer Alyson Fauske will talk a little bit more about kind of the remaining property but what
we’d like to do is as a part of the application what we call is a ghost plat showing how that
property could lay out in the future. So again this is the .94 that you’ll be looking at that will be
attached as the subdivision to the property to the north for the construction of an additional
continuing care or as an expansion.
Aller: Kate, and just for clarification. Even though we’re looking at a ghost plat we’re not
taking any action on that.
Aanenson: Thank you, yes. That would have to come back through another process. Another
public hearing. Thank you for that clarification. So again this would be the subdivision replat.
You can see Lot 1 will now be the expansion of BeeHive so it will be all one lot so we’re adding
a portion of that lot. That’s the replat to the existing lot. Lot 2 will remain and that will have
Mr. Gowen’s home and other, there’s some out buildings there and then you can see to the right,
this would be the ghost plat in this area here. Again that would have to come back through the
process to show but we wanted to make sure with the subdivision or the attachment of that lot
that there’s viability of the rest of the property that it does make some sense. Obviously there’s
tweaks to it and I know we’ll talk a little bit more detail on that. So this again would be the
ghost plat. Part of with this plat is to make sure that you know with right now with the two
driveways, we had a right-in/right-out. It’s being used as a full service as you get close to 41.
Excuse me, Highway 7 and the middle school. A lot of turn movements there at certain times of
the day. The new driveway then will be located T’ing into Minnetonka Middle School West and
that existing driveway will go away. So with this subdivision there’s also a variance for having
existing structures off of a private drive, and I’ll show you that here in a minute. So this is a
little bit more detailed. Little bit better illustration of how this lays out. So this is the existing
building. The proposed addition with 17 more beds. So the existing driveway will come out.
Let’s see if I can make this show up a little bit better. A little red dot maybe. The existing
driveway would come out and move down here. It’s our recommendation too that the sign come
down so that it’s easier for emergency vehicles or entering guests, that they can find the main
entrance. So the private street comes in in the fact that we’re serving two properties off of a
private drive so that does require a variance so that the Findings of Fact are in there for the
private drive. Again we think it makes sense. Ultimately this could become a public street when
Mr. Gowen chooses to sell his home, whenever that may be but that was why we showed the
ghost plat is how we can lay out the rest of that property. Could it be developed in the future and
again we kind of went with a twin home or it could be a smaller lot too coming in in the future.
So is there any questions so far on that part of it? Okay I’ll show you a little bit more detail then.
Just showing you the floor plan and I know when we got questions, I’ll go back a little bit saying
how does this work? It’s actually going to be one building via building code that it’s connected
through a breezeway and that’s between the blue and the yellow how they’re connected. You
can see that on the floor plan so it will function as one building but the connection of the
breezeway. So the architecture, you can see what’s out there today. It’s just continuing
compliment of that architectural feature. So you can see the existing building and the proposed
addition and again more detail on the addition. There’s a lot more detail in the staff report. I
wasn’t going to go through a lot of it. I’m assuming most of you are pretty familiar with it but it
does meet the city code as far as all the architectural standards and then the parking. One of the
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
things I didn’t show on here is there was some concern when people move in and out there’s
some activities that are higher so they are providing additional parking with the new phase and
then providing that in good access for both buildings. Here’s the material board. Again similar
to what’s already out there and the same style. I’ll let Alyson Fauske go through some of the
drainage on this site and some of the other engineering issues.
Fauske: Thank you Kate. As you can see on this slide, this shows the existing, the post
development drainage patterns with the area outlined in red showing the existing building that
goes to a pond that was constructed with that development and then the area outlined in yellow
that goes over land to a pond located in the Reed’s Orchard Subdivision in this outlot here. So
what the developer is proposing, the area that we just took a look at is essentially this orange
area. Or pardon me is this area to the north here. The new area, drainage areas are shown in
here with the proposed addition to the BeeHive development. The area in orange would go to a
filtration basin. The area in red to the existing pond. The area in yellow to the MnDOT right-of-
way and the area in blue, that would go over land and to the west. So the proposed filtration
basin that goes to, from the previous, that goes to the west is in this location and actually even
just today staff met with the applicant and the applicant’s engineer to go over some of the
concerns that staff had raised with the stormwater report making sure for one that the existing
pond would have capacity for the additional drainage from this site. Another thing that has
posed a little bit of a design constraint is that the, the storm event that one uses to model has
changed. They’ve updated those rain event models so we’re working with the developer so that
they can get the drainage plan changed and altered so that it can meet the requirements from the
City and the Watershed District. As Kate had mentioned, excuse me. A traffic analysis was
done with this development and one of the reasons being is that we are doing a new connection
to the Trunk Highway system removing 3 existing accesses and putting one that T’s up with the
middle school west. This was always the intention for looking at the development of this area.
Phase 1 did not allow for that since the owner did not have rights to that connection point but
now they’re at an opportunity where they can do so. Staff and MnDOT I think all involved
believe that this is an improvement to the corridor. It will still allow full access to the site so that
you can have both right turns and left turns into the site but as part of the analysis staff working
with the developer to get the ghost plat so that they could get a reasonable idea of what the
ultimate number of units in a feature development would be so that when they took a look at the
function of that access to 41, that the estimated trip generation would be in the ballpark of what
you would ultimately see at that intersection so we’re not just looking at this development by
itself but we’re also looking forward into the future and making an estimate on that. So based on
those assumptions the developer had a traffic engineer do a trip generation analysis for both the
a.m. and p.m. peak and based on that analysis they determined that there would be no changes
needed in the traffic control at that location so no signalized, there’d be no signal requirements
there. Excuse me. Highway 41 traffic would have the right-of-way would be the right
movement for northbound and southbound would not have a stop condition.
Aller: Alyson, are you.
Fauske: Certainly.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
Aller: Just ask a quick question. On that however should the conditions change in the future and
it become desirable to have one, we can work with MnDOT and MnDOT can certainly come in
and request or impose a stop light condition.
Fauske: Certainly. MnDOT can certainly do that. It would be under MnDOT’s jurisdiction
being that it is a state highway. This was always something that was anticipated in this corridor
would be to have a T intersection at that, at the middle school.
Aanenson: Alyson I was going to have you maybe mention the safe to school a little bit further
to the north. We’ve got, looking at a trail, I didn’t show that. Maybe if you want to. So there is
a proposed trail that connects to the north. To the existing building going north and then there is
a control for crossing that street. Maybe if you want to just mention that too.
Fauske: That’s correct. A couple, time has kind of gotten away from me. Two-three years ago
or so and Mr. Stevens might have a better idea on the exact dates but some improvements were
made to the Highway 41 corridor where there’s a pedestrian signal to allow pedestrians. It’s a
push button access so that folks that are using the trail can go ahead and push that. It’s push
activated. It’s then a lighted signal warning motorists that there’s a pedestrian crossing at that
location. Traffic is to yield to the pedestrian so that was one of the intent was to provide a
pedestrian access particularly for the middle school students that would be crossing Highway 41
so that they wouldn’t have to make the crossing at Highway 7.
Aanenson: I think you just had one other slide Alyson.
Fauske: In addition to getting some idea of how any proposed future subdivision would lay out
on Lot 2, for traffic perspective. Staff also likes to take a look at how the layout would work for
sanitary sewer service so again we’ve been working with the developer’s engineer to see if, how
we would service this, any potential future development on this property sanitary sewer. The
reason being the existing phase stubbed the sanitary sewer. It’s right here at this location so
we’re taking a look to see if we continue extending this through here, if we would be able to get
gravity sewer service to the most westerly lots within the ghost plat and one of the things that the
developer’s engineer is taking a look at is some sanitary sewer that is to the northwest that is
deeper than what we’re seeing at the existing proposed extension at this location. So those are
parts of the process for getting things set up for having the foresight for any potential future
development so that we, you know when the time comes when the property owner is ready to
allow for development on the property that we kind of have a game plan and that we’ve looked
forward and looked ahead to how we would service this with municipal utilities.
Aanenson: Thank you. So I just want to say we put in the staff report too the landscaping plan.
I didn’t share that with you. There are a couple tweaks that we have for conditions of approval
in the staff report. We also have the compliance table in there. One of the things we talked
about when this project came forward in 2012 is that it does allow for two stories. Even the
office zoning and this application is for one story. Highly articulate building. We think is really
nice reflective in that transitional zone from the buffer from a state highway to lower density
residential so it does meet all those requirements including the parking. So with that the staff is
recommending approval. Again there’s 3 motions that go with that so we’ve included in your
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
staff report the Findings of Fact for the variance and for the subdivision so I’ll be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Aller: Does anybody have any questions at this point?
Madsen: I do. I just have a question about the private road. I just want to verify that the
parameters of a private road would ensure sufficient access for emergency vehicles or an
ambulance.
Aanenson: Yes. The Fire Marshal does look at the plans for these and it’s servicing right now.
Actually I think one of the benefits of this private street, it’s going to actually give better access
in turn movements. Right now at certain peak hours, especially when school is unloading and
loading, some of those turn movements are difficult so yes it will meet those requirements.
Madsen: Thank you.
Weick: I had.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Two questions pretty quick. It mentions hard cover. Not to exceed 35 percent and this
is 33. Can you just clarify what the hard cover is calculated off of? Is it original Lot 1? New
Lot 1 or Lot 1 plus Lot 2? I mean how is that calculated?
Aanenson: I would have to go back and look at the staff report.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: It may be combined because they’re, it’s going to be one lot. If you look into the
future.
Weick: Like the new Lot 1.
Aanenson: It’d be Lot 1, yes.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: That’s my assumption, yes. Yeah it’s both.
Weick: Okay, thank you. Oh and then a question on the drainage. Just were there any concerns
over the existing home and out buildings as far as where some of those drainage patterns might
be?
Fauske: The existing facility or?
Weick: The single.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
Aanenson: Mr. Gowen’s home.
Weick: Yeah.
Fauske: Not that I’m aware of but it’s a single family home so it’s impervious surface is
relatively small compared to what.
Weick: I just mean the actual flow of it. If there was water.
Aanenson: Water going to that house.
Weick: Going to the house.
Fauske: Not that I’m aware of.
Weick: Okay. I didn’t know if anything was noticed. Okay.
Aller: Okay, and for those present and for those at home watching.
Tietz: Andrew.
Aller: I just want to remind everyone that these packets and the reports that we’re provided to
read and review are on the City website and you’re certainly welcome to take a look at those.
And if you do that before the meetings you can kind of read along with us or afterwards if you
want to check out things before the City Council meeting, everything is on the website so.
Tietz: Andrew?
Aller: Mr. Tietz.
Tietz: Yeah Alyson, I have a question regarding the stormwater retention.
Fauske: Yes.
Tietz: The new parcel for BeeHive, if the stormwater is in that, the west corner on the low end
of that corner, how does that impact any future plans for the ghost plan? Are they, would they be
stand alone projects so this is stormwater just for BeeHive and it would not be available for
future development on Mr. Gowen’s property?
Fauske: That’s an excellent question Commissioner Tietz. Currently the proposal is to provide
infiltration for the proposed development on Lot 1. That being said the applicant can certainly
take this opportunity to size it appropriately based on what they’re anticipating is the ultimate
development of the site. But as far as the standards for this development it would just be for lot,
as it currently stands. The proposed.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
Tietz: So potentially the ghost plan for Lot 2 would be encumbered by an additional ponding
area for infiltration.
Fauske: Correct. If we look at this slide shows it quite nicely. If we look at this potential ghost
plat, the developer’s engineer has identified this as a potential stormwater management area so
any development proposal on Lot 2 would be subject to the surface water management
requirements at that time. It’s not grandfathered in under this because it would be under a new
subdivision scenario so it would be, the new rules would apply to that subdivision and
stormwater management.
Tietz: Okay. And the west property, proposed west property line on Lot 1 and the ghost plan
differ. Go back to the one that shows the drainage plan that’s squared off and this one is angled.
Is there just a.
Fauske: That’s an excellent question.
Tietz: There you go.
Aanenson: I think the ghost plat is probably more illustrative. Just showing how that would
work.
Tietz: That’s what I, that’s what I figured but it doesn’t affect this…area.
Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah.
Tietz: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions? Okay. At this point in time if the applicant would like to come
forward and make any presentation or comments, that would be wonderful.
Tyler Stevens: Hello and good evening. My name is Tyler Stevens. I’m the applicant and my
address is 6505 Fox Hollow Court. As you know about 2 years ago, 2 ½. Well 2012 I was here
for the first round and my wife and I live in Chanhassen and when we decided to do this, you
know started thinking about this whole idea 4-5 years ago, the reason we wanted to do it in
Chanhassen was because we thought not only, we knew it would be an advantageous thing for
the city. It’s, the building looks, was designed to look and feel like a home and I think we’ve
accomplished that. And one of the main reasons for the idea of doing this addition is to have, it’s
going to allow us to have 6,000 square feet more activity space for the residents to use. We are
adding bedrooms but we’re adding a significant amount of activity space really because the idea
of BeeHive is kind of based on the premise that it’s suppose to look, feel and act like a home and
the only way of doing that is to you know bring in kids and you know outside activities and
things like that. So you guys have any questions for me? I guess I can address Mr. Tietz, about
the lot line adjustment. The original plan with the ghost plat when we first brought this to the
City and they wanted to see a ghost plat. That was kind of like first phase, months and months
ago so that angle was very, very preliminary in the beginning. And then once we hired the civil
firm to kind of really start tightening up these plans, then they decided to do the 90 degree right
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
off the existing property line and kind of simplify it a little bit. But the ghost plat was originally
just more conceptual as to what could come.
Aller: And again the only thing that you’re asking us tonight is to work with the smaller.
Tyler Stevens: Yep, just the Lot 1. We’re going to be, we’re breaking off the, just under the
acre and just change the zoning and the variance for the addition.
Aller: Alright.
Tyler Stevens: But the remaining 6 acres would stay the same.
Aller: Any additional questions for Mr. Tietz? Seeing none, thank you so much.
Tyler Stevens: Thank you.
Aller: At this point in time I’ll open the public hearing portion of this item so anyone wishing to
speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. We’d ask you to come up to the
podium and state your name and address.
th
Gary Reed: I’m Gary Reed, 2461 West 64 Street.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Reed.
Gary Reed: Yeah, anyway we’re just happy on how this development has been working out for
the neighborhood and for, you know because we knew it quite a while ago that it was up for
rezoning at some point and so this is probably the best thing that can happen to that property for
the rest of the neighborhood. Anyway we’ll be more affected by the ghost plat, whatever that
might be because our property butts into the west, southwest corner of that property there and
actually I have probably an extra lot on my lot there that could be incorporated into that if it need
be so anyway we’re just happy.
Aller: And Mr. Reed I just wanted to let you know we did receive your correspondence which is
in the packet and we understand that in there you stated that you heard nothing but good things
about BeeHive and it’s operation and again you’re very pleased that they’re there.
Gary Reed: My wife emails all the neighborhood girls.
Jan Reed: Well I’ll make a comment.
Gary Reed: This is my wife Jan. Same address.
Aller: Welcome.
Jan Reed: We have a really great, tight knit neighborhood. Actually it’s extended out. We have
26 women that at different amounts get together every month for a little gathering and so
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
everybody’s been interested in the proposal. Our property. What was going to happen and I’ve
just heard nothing but wonderful comments about Tyler. The development but Tyler as a person
as how considerate he’s been to the neighbors and especially now how considerate he’s been to
Ben and we just think Tyler’s a wonderful person and we feel anything that he proposes in the
future will be with great consideration for the neighborhood so I just wanted to let you know
what the talk is among all the women is that it’s just been a great project.
Aller: Great, thank you so much.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I don’t know if you know, maybe for our new commissioners
too. So the Reeds is Reeds Orchard Ridge but they also owned the drive in where the first phase
went in so there was a drive in there and some other buildings so they were the owners.
Gary Reed: Reeds Drive In.
Aanenson: Yes, I remember that. Yes. Yes.
Aller: I missed that one. Mr. Gowen, welcome.
Ben Gowen: My name is Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine. I’m very much in favor of this proposal.
I know that time will change and I will have to change and I’m getting old and I’m ready. I think
it’s a good project. Good deal.
Aller: Well it’s good to see you again. Thank you for your comments. Any additional
comments? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion and open it to
discussion by the commissioners.
Weick: For fear of offending the staff that puts together awesome reports, I will say that the
most important people that I personally hear from are the neighbors in the area and although
there’s, there’s a lot of business that we take care of. It’s always I listen the closest to how you
feel about projects. It is the most important voice for us and for the City and so thank you for
taking the time to come out and talk about this property and this development and this developer.
It is very important I think to all of us what you think and what you want for your area so thank
you.
Aller: Additional comments?
Yusuf: …Commissioner Weick’s point I’d acquiesce.
Aller: Great, and it’s great to hear about a neighborhood that works together and has a
community feel to it because that’s what Chanhassen’s all about. We love to hear about that so
again thank you for coming forward. I’ll entertain a motion at this time.
Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve rezoning of property from Single Family Residential District to Mixed Medium
Density Residential District. Preliminary plats to replat 8.69 acres into two lots with a variance
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
for a private street. And the site plan review for 10,700 square foot addition to a continuing care
retirement facility, BeeHive Homes and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, a second by Commissioner Madsen, any
further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approvePlanning Case #2015-10 to rezone 0.9 acres of property from RSF,
Single Family Residential District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential for Lot 1,
nd
Block 1, BeeHive Home 2 Addition subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as
shown in plans dated received April 17, 2015, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat with a variance to allow a private street for Planning
nd
Case 2015-10 for BeeHive Home 2 Addition as shown in plans dated received April 17,
2015, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the
following conditions:
Engineering Conditions:
1.All conveyances, drainage ways and stormwater treatment devices must be included within a
drainage and utility easement as required in Section 18-76 (c).
2.The perimeter drainage and utility easement must be vacated and re-platted to border the new
property lines.
3.The proposed drainage and utility easement over the proposed sanitary sewer must be
widened to facilitate the utility maintenance and excavation of the pipe.
4.The portion of the private driveway that would be shared for access will be considered a
private street under the city code. It must, therefore, have a 7-ton design and a joint access
and maintenance agreement must be created between the two parcels.
5.The private street will need a name labeled on the plans. Name suggestions shall be
submitted to the City for approval.
6.The drive aisle of the parking lot must be revised to provide 26 feet wide from face of curb.
7.The new trunk lines will be owned and maintained by the City. The services connecting to
the buildings will be private.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
8.The sanitary sewer pipe under the new section of driveway is set at a 5.02% pitch. The grade
on that pipe section shall be adjusted to a 0.50% slope to provide future gravity sewer to as
much of the southern property as possible.
9.Plan and profile sheets are required for all publically-owned utilities.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 10,700 square-foot addition continuing care
retirement facility, Planning Case 2015-10 for BeeHive Homes as shown in plans dated
received April 17, 2015, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation,
subject to the following conditions:
Planning Conditions:
1.The existing monument sign shall be moved to the new access into the site to clearly define the
access for emergency vehicles.
2.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the rezoning, subdivision and vacation
of drainage and utility easement.
3.All rooftop equipment must be screened.
Building Official Conditions:
1.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota. A “Code Record” is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as
architectural). For “Code Record” information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry:
http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp
2.Retaining walls in excess of 48 inches in height must be designed by a professional structural
engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota.
3.A demolition permit is required for removal of any existing structures.
4.The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
5.An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops
and all common-use facilities.
6.All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces
dispersed among the various building entrances.
7.Accessible units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter
1341.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
8.The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, occupancy group, type of construction
and allowable area issues must be addressed.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
1. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow-painted curb will be required on the new driveway.
Only one side of the driveway will be posted “No Parking.” Contact the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact locations.
Engineering Conditions:
1.A stable conveyance must be provided to the proposed infiltration basin identified as 5P on
the drainage plan.
2.The applicant must create a HydroCAD model for the entire site using data from Atlas 14
and demonstrate the pond created with the first phase can accommodate additional drainage.
3.The applicant must model the conveyance to the infiltration basin as a reach and demonstrate
that the grass filter swale meets the MN Stormwater Manual guidelines for pretreatment.
4.The applicant is required to meet a water quality volume of one (1) inch runoff from all new
impervious surface.
5.The applicant must provide a water quality model, as required by Section 19-144 of the city
code, showing that there is a 60% reduction in TP and 90% reduction in TSS as required by
city code and the NPDES permits.
6.The plan set shall include a detail specific to each bioretention feature which is consistent
with the MN Stormwater Manual.
7.Plugs and live plants shall be used in lieu of seed and a planting schedule and maintenance
plan shall be developed and submitted for city approvals and record retention for both
bioretention features.
8.The stormwater management plan shall treat the runoff from the proposed drive.
9.The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a Surface Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit which shall
contain all required elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit.
10.The plans shall indicate that six (6) inches of topsoil are to be placed on all disturbed areas to
be vegetated and a stockpile area shall be indicated on the plan set.
11.A final stabilization plan shall be prepared for the site.
12.The plans shall show locations proposed for stockpile areas.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015
13.A soils report shall be submitted to staff indicating soil conditions and permeability.
14.The grading plans must be revised to show the first floor elevations of adjacent lots.
15.Spot elevations must also be shown to illustrate the drainage pattern near the existing home’s
driveway.
16.The proposed grades on the site shall be no greater than 3:1.
17.The engineer shall coordinate with MnDOT and incorporate their comments.
18.The radius of the driveway curves must be shown on the plan set.
19.The trail width shall be labeled on the plan set.
20.The plan shall be revised to reconstruct the trail further north to create a better connection.
21.The new addition is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These charges are
based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of
building permit issuance.
22.The developer’s engineer must incorporate the latest edition of Chanhassen Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates into the plan set.
Environmental Resource Conditions:
1.Install tree protection fencing around all preserved trees shown on grading plans. The
fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity and remain until site construction
is completed.
2.Site plantings shall be increased to meet minimum bufferyard requirements. Plantings shall
be located so as to soften direct views in areas where the proposed building is closest to
property lines.
3.Bufferyard plantings shall be located on the west side of the entryway drive rather than on
the east as proposed.
4.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city showing proposed plantings adjacent
to the entire parking area that limit direct views of the pavement and the vehicles.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DAYCO CONCRETE CUP/SPA AMENDMENTS, PLANNING CASE 2015-11:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-02 ND SITE
PLAN AGREEMENT 2001-05 TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE ON
PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED AT
13